Ukrainian Protests Compared to 2004 Orange Revolution Ukrainian Protests Compared to 2004 Orange Revolution Nov 25, 2013 — 23:00 Spy Games: How The Spectre of Surveillance Impacts Moscow’s Foreigners Protesters squaring off with riot police in front of the Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers building in Kiev on Monday. Sergei Chuzavkov / AP Protests against the Ukrainian government's decision to delay an association deal with the European Union last week in favor of closer ties with Russia continued in Kiev on Monday, prompting memories of the 2004 Orange Revolution, while the EU issued a statement condemning Russia's actions in the dispute. Just as nine years ago, the protests have been driven by a feud between pro-Western and pro-Russian forces over the future of Ukraine, a key geopolitical prize in eastern Europe. The Kremlin was deeply angered by the outcome of the Orange Revolution, which saw demonstrators protest against the Russian government's favored presidential candidate and current Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who then lost to pro-Western politician Viktor Yushchenko in a re-run election.

President Vladimir Putin has already accused the EU of being willing to sponsor protests to get its way this time around as well. Russia appears to have the upper hand in this dispute, but the European Union may end up drawing Ukraine into its fold eventually. "There is no geopolitical victory for Russia" in the suspension of EU talks, said Stanislav Belkovsky, head of the National Strategy Institute. "The vector for European integration is irreversible … and the current protests are cementing that vector." According to various estimates, 50,000 to 200,000 people took to the streets in Kiev on Sunday, the largest protests since the Orange Revolution, while smaller rallies took place all over Ukraine. The Kiev protesters set up a protest camp on central square Evropeiska Ploshcha, clashed with police and tried to break a police cordon around the Cabinet building. Most of the people either went home or were dispersed by the police by Monday morning. But some remained, and more protesters poured into central Kiev on Monday, flocked to the Cabinet building again, fought with police and blocked Vulitsya Grushevskogo.

The police used batons and tear gas to disperse the demonstrators, and the authorities initiated a criminal case against protesters who clashed with police on Sunday on charges of hooliganism and resisting arrest. In Lviv — the major stronghold of Ukrainian nationalism and pro-Western sentiment — about 10,000 students demonstrated against the government on Monday, and all classes at universities were canceled, Kommersant reported. As the standoff with the government escalated, Ukraine’s center-right Svoboda party urged the parliament to pass a vote of no confidence in the Cabinet, while the liberal Batkivshchina party asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to initiate a criminal case against Prime Minister Mykola Azarov and the Cabinet for allegedly exceeding their authority by suspending the deal with the EU. The EU reacted to the developments in the country by issuing a statement Monday decrying Russia’s actions in relation to Ukraine. “While being aware of the external pressure that Ukraine is experiencing, we believe that short-term considerations should not override the long-term benefits that this partnership would bring,” said European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in the statement.

“It is up to Ukraine to freely decide what kind of engagement they seek with the EU.” “Ukrainian citizens have again shown these last days that they fully understand and embrace the historic nature of the European association,” the EU leaders said, apparently referring to the protests. “We therefore strongly disapprove of the Russian position and actions in this respect. Stronger relations with the EU do not come at the expense of relations between our Eastern partners and their other neighbors, such as Russia. The Eastern Partnership is conceived as a win-win where we all stand to gain,” they said. Russia has been accused of pressuring Ukraine to suspend the deal with the EU by introducing cumbersome customs checks on Ukrainian imports and initiating a dispute over gas supplies in recent months. Putin said Monday that Russia would have to put restrictions on Ukrainian imports if the country signed the Association Agreement. During the 2004 Orange Revolution, Russia was also accused of interfering with Ukrainian events in favor of Yanukovych, while the Kremlin said Western money and intelligence agencies were behind the revolution.

Some observers said the current protests could trigger changes similar to the Orange Revolution, when hundreds of thousands of people protested on Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiev from November 2004 to January 2005 against perceived election fraud. As a result of the uprising, Yanukovych’s victory in a presidential vote was canceled, and Yushchenko came to power in a repeat election. Jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, one of Yanukovych’s chief political foes and a leader of the Orange Revolution, said Sunday that the ongoing protests marked an anniversary of the 2004 events. “Due to a mystical turn of fate, Yanukovych again made us take to the streets during the same days of the month as nine years ago,” she said in a statement. “This means that we must complete what we failed to do after the 2004 Orange Revolution. We must once and for all expel corrupt clans out of the government.” But Konstantin Zatulin, head of the CIS Countries Institute and a State Duma deputy, dismissed comparisons with the power transition of 2004.

“Color revolutions happened in countries where the government was weak and unconsolidated,” he said, adding that Yanukovych’s current position was strong, unlike that of then-President Leonid Kuchma in 2004. The Orange Revolution was partially a result of Kuchma’s intrigues, and he lost his influence as a result of unsuccessful efforts to get his protege Yanukovych elected, Zatulin said. But now Yanukovych is fighting for his own future, not that of a successor. “He will fight until the end,” Zatulin said. Belkovsky said Yanukovych had already opted for a pro-European course, however, and was using the current delay in talks on the EU agreement as a bargaining chip to get $10 billion in EU loans that he needed for the 2015 presidential election. Belkovsky added that Kiev was likely to sign an association deal with the EU within a year — and that the Kremlin can do nothing about it.

Contact the author at o.sukhov@imedia.ru shares ORANGE REVOLUTION: Volume XV Number 2 (February-March 2005) ORANGE REVOLUTION: By Tammy Lynch The cliff note version of the Orange Revolution is well known: At the end of 2004, Ukrainians peacefully and joyfully rose up against a discredited regime following a discredited presidential election purportedly won by a discredited candidate. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians descended on Ukraine�s capital city of Kyiv to reject the claim that the government-backed candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, had won the presidential election run-off. Ukrainians gathered en masse to insist that Viktor Yushchenko, the internationally recognized winner of the poll, be allowed to fulfill his mandate. Kyiv turned orange, as everyone from shopkeepers to taxi drivers to bank presidents adopted Yushchenko�s campaign color as their own. After 17 days of loud but orderly protest, the newly emboldened Supreme Court ordered a repeat of the presidential run-off. Less than two weeks later, Yushchenko celebrated his victory in that poll.

In one month, the Ukrainian people had reset their country�s political and geographical orientation and had demonstrated their support for freedom, democracy and truth. The �power of the people� had triumphed – a point clear to anyone who had visited Kyiv during the previous weeks. On November 27, six days after the start of the revolution, Tom Warner of the Financial Times attempted to describe the atmosphere created by the thousands of people flooding into downtown Kyiv. �The growing crowds have taken on a dynamic of their own,� he wrote. �Whatever one names it, the movement Mr. Yushchenko began has become an awesome demonstration of popular power.� (1) �Popular power� it most certainly was – of a kind rarely seen in one lifetime. But did Viktor Yushchenko really begin this �movement�? And when did it truly originate? Upon examination, and when placed within the context of Ukraine�s major political battles of the last four years, the Orange Revolution can be viewed as the spectacular culmination of a movement that found its roots in the year 2000. There is no doubt that Viktor Yushchenko�s stolen election victory was the rallying cry for the thousands who occupied Kyiv�s Independence Square.

Clearly, he is the man Ukrainians have charged with leading them as they move toward Europe. He is by far the most trusted political leader in the country and the man seen as Ukraine�s best hope for the future. Also clearly, opposition leader and now Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko spurred the crowds on with her spirited speeches and with her reputation as Ukraine�s most unwavering opposition leader. But, as they look back on their victory, Ukrainians have someone else equally important to thank for their success (albeit unintentionally) – former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma. The Orange Revolution was a largely spontaneous outpouring of anger and hope on the part of the people; for the country�s political leaders, however, it was the culmination of years of preparation by opposition forces, and even more important, the almost direct result of miscalculations by the Kuchma regime. Without the actions of Leonid Kuchma and his entourage, Viktor Yushchenko and many of his allies might not have chosen the route of revolution. But Kuchma gave Yushchenko little choice – despite Yushchenko�s repeated and sometimes plaintive requests for a way out.

As 1999 gave way to the year 2000, Kuchma began moving down a brash, bumbling and often thuggish path designed to neutralize his opponents. Disagreement and debate were no longer tolerated. All power would be consolidated in his hands and in the hands of his allies. The tactic, also being pursued in an almost identical fashion in neighboring Russia, had quick, superficial success. But, the resilience of his opponents –most particularly Tymoshenko – was unexpected, and the long-term effect of his attacks was not predicted. Kuchma�s attempts to neutralize the opposition began in earnest in mid-2000 with an attack on the Communists and Socialists, but he gradually worked to undermine, in some way, all forces opposing him.

The path to revolution was paved by Kuchma and/or his allies when they undermined the Communist and Socialist Parties in parliament, ceaselessly harassed and arrested opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, became implicated in the death of Georgiy Gongadze, rigged the parliamentary elections of 2002, undertook a demonizing campaign against Viktor Yushchenko, and finally staged the fraudulent elections of 2004, complete with a brazen poisoning of Yushchenko. For the duration of most of Kuchma�s attack, Yushchenko rebuffed the more radical methods of the declared opposition. He repeatedly reached out to Kuchma and his parliamentary allies, attempting to change the direction of the government from within. However, every one of his overtures was met with an attack. Finally, faced with no other alternative, Viktor Yushchenko was left to ally with a waiting opposition, and take up a position of direct conflict with the authorities. The shadows of this �waiting opposition� began to form around Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz as early as 1998, but truly began to consolidate in 2000. Its development is complicated, yet clear.

Prior to 2000, Ukraine�s parliament was controlled by a majority coalition made up of the Communist and Socialist Parties, as well as numerous smaller leftist groupings, and was sometimes tacitly supported by the presidential administration. From 1994-1998, Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz served as the speaker of parliament. His reign ended as speaker in mid-1998 when President Kuchma successfully organized a bloc of deputies who agreed not to vote in his favor. Although Kuchma and Moroz had never been particularly friendly, the move cemented Moroz�s opposition to the president and allowed him more freedom in criticizing the president – something that would soon be essential to opposition politics in Ukraine. In late 1999, with Ukraine�s economy floundering, and a former prime minister under international investigation for embezzlement, (2) President Kuchma and his allies–including newly confirmed Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko–removed any backing they may have given to the leftist coalition. They began working toward a �reformist� parliamentary majority, led by a �reformist� speaker.

In February of 2000, this goal was achieved when Oleksandr Tkachenko was replaced by the pro-presidential Ivan Pluysch. The change in the composition of the parliamentary majority was hailed by the Ukrainian government, international financiers and investors. Ukraine had finally moved out from under the shadow of the Communist Party. It was unquestionably a positive step for Ukraine; for the first time the government was able to enact truly reform-oriented legislation. Additionally, in the long-term, the move had unexpected consequences–it led to the creation of the first true opposition force in Ukraine. In response to the loss of their majority, leftist deputies announced numerous protests, and suggested that they would fight vigorously for their positions in the future. In that moment, Ukraine not only began moving forward on necessary reforms, but also saw the Communist and Socialist Parties transformed, at least temporarily, into a true opposition force led by individuals who no longer had any stake in the government. This fact became vital just a few months later when the headless body of journalist Georgiy Gongadze was discovered. Without question, the murder of investigative journalist Georgiy Gongadze was a watershed moment for Ukraine.

Gongadze was one of the founders of the opposition-oriented Ukrayinska Pravda website, and regularly examined and criticized the influence of business interests, or �oligarchic clans,� on the functioning of the government. Gongadze disappeared on September 16, 2000. Three weeks later, a decapitated body identified as Gongadze�s by his family and colleagues was discovered in a village outside Kyiv. Immediately, calls for the government to investigate the case actively came from political opposition and media circles. Very little was done. Then, on November 28, 2000, Oleksandr Moroz called a press conference to play secretly recorded conversations of President Kuchma – conversations which included discussions of how to �shut up� Gongadze. The conversations reportedly were held shortly before the journalist�s disappearance. Moroz stated, �The President was worried by Gongadze�s activities, gave instructions and controlled their execution.� (3) Kuchma immediately denied the accusation, labeled the tapes as fake, and threatened to sue Moroz for slander. (4) Moroz responded that he had done nothing wrong, and called for an official parliamentary probe into the situation.

�Then,� he said, �we could get the grounds for launching an impeachment case against Kuchma.� (5) It was the first time a major political figure suggested such a scenario. Authentication of both the tapes and the body began immediately, and months passed as Moroz and Kuchma traded threats and demands. Throughout these months, protest actions built. The appearance of the tapes provided the opposition with a �cause,� and also provided an outlet for Ukrainians who had watched their economy and living standards plummet under Kuchma. On the 15th of December, 500 protestors announced a �sit-in� at Independence Square in Kyiv. In a scenario almost identical to that which began the Orange Revolution, the protestors rallied and pitched tents, to form a camp where they threatened to stay until the president was impeached. (6) On December 19, more than 5,000 protestors descended on Independence Square. The demonstrators were joined by a number of parliamentary deputies, including Moroz and the leaders of both the Communist Party and the extreme nationalist Ukrainian People�s Association (UNA-UNSO).

(7) At the same time, over 1,000 people gathered outside the parliament building shouting one of the slogans later adopted by the Orange Revolution, �Kuchma, Het,� or Kuchma, Out. (8) Also on December 19, 2000, a few brave political leaders found the will to unite. Leaders of the Communist and Socialist Parties were joined publicly in opposition to Kuchma by the leaders of several smaller parties–the radical UNA-UNSO, the rightist People�s Rukh, and the centrist Yabloko and Sobor parties. They named their new alliance �Ukraine Without Kuchma.� UNA-UNSO member Ruslan Zaitsenko said, �Kuchma has to go. That will sort things out. Then, our first choice [for president] will be Prime Minister Yushchenko.� (9) However, as of mid-December, Yushchenko had made no public comment about the Gongadze issue. Instead, he responded to protestor�s demands by arranging a meeting with the president for the leaders of the action.

At the meeting, according to then-Socialist representative and current Minister of the Interior Yuri Lutsenko, Kuchma agreed to dismiss three officials implicated in the Gongadze tapes. Lutsenko told reporters that Interior Minister Yuri Kravchenko, Ukrainian Security Service Director Leonid Derkach and Customs Head Yuri Solovkov would be replaced. If Kuchma had fulfilled his promise, it is likely that the protest action would have lost much of its impetus. However, he quickly backtracked; his spokeswoman suggested that at Yushchenko�s request the president had only agreed to consider replacing the officials. (10) The president had lost an opportunity to placate his opponents, while the resolve of the protest leaders hardened. Moroz, who reportedly had been pleased with the progress of negotiations, responded angrily to Kuchma�s shift. He promised additional, larger demonstrations. �We will not tolerate the situation when the president tells protestors� representatives one thing, and his press secretary later denies what the president said,� he told journalists.

(11) The plan to expand the protests was cut short, however, as a Kyiv court responded to a government request by immediately banning all protest actions around government buildings �for the holiday period.� The measure unexpectedly went into effect on December 22, the day after the meeting with Kuchma. The court announced that the ban would lift on January 29. Kuchma used the court-ordered cessation of protests to what he undoubtedly believed would be good advantage. On January 19, President Kuchma fired Yulia Tymoshenko, then the Deputy Prime Minister for Fuel and Energy, who had been charged with embezzlement and tax evasion conveniently just days earlier. The president�s actions came after almost a year of wrangling between Kuchma and Tymoshenko, as he attempted to control her energy sector reforms and she attempted to end the �schemes� used by energy companies – often connected to him and his friends–to avoid taxation. The actions also came after Tymoshenko announced her belief that Kuchma�s involvement in Gongadze�s death was �an established fact,� and after she encouraged other security personnel to publicize illegal actions by officials.

(12) Tymoshenko came to the cabinet fresh from leading the multi-billion dollar energy conglomerate Unified Energy Systems of Ukraine (UES). Opposition to her work was to be expected. Almost immediately after joining Viktor Yushchenko�s cabinet (she had also worked in the same position for Pavlo Lazarenko), Tymoshenko released a scathing statement calling on all political forces to �decisively repulse the destructive affairs of the oligarchs.� (13) It got plenty of attention. Oligarchs were said to have complained mightily to Kuchma; the president then tried in vain to force Yushchenko to dismiss Tymoshenko. She vowed repeatedly never to give in to the president�s pressure to resign. Before taking her on, the prosecutor-general ordered the arrest of Tymoshenko�s husband and several other colleagues with whom she had worked at UES. Mykhailo Obikhod claimed that Oleksandr Tymoshenko had embezzled state funds while sitting on the board of directors at UES.

(14) Tymoshenko lashed out at the arrests, saying that the only guilt of those arrested �was that they were close to me.� (15) Months later, as her husband remained in prison, Tymoshenko continued to cling stubbornly to her position, underscoring her nickname as the �Iron Lady.� At the same time, rumors began to surface that she was helping to finance anti-Kuchma demonstrations. (16) By the time of her dismissal on January 19, 2001, Tymoshenko had been hardened into a staunch oppositionist. She loudly participated in the renewal of �Ukraine Without Kuchma� protests and hailed the creation of a new tent city in Independence Square. In addition, with Oleksandr Moroz, Tymoshenko announced an alliance of 15 parties from the left, right and center called the National Salvation Forum. The Forum�s stated goal was to carry out �a new velvet revolution� by focusing Kyiv�s somewhat chaotic and uncoordinated protests on specific goals. (17) It would appear that this alliance touched a governmental nerve. Four days after the announcement of the new pact, Yulia Tymoshenko was arrested.

And, on the same day she was taken into custody, a letter attacking the opposition appeared throughout the Ukrainian press–signed by President Leonid Kuchma � and Viktor Yushchenko. Together with Parliament Speaker Lytvyn, they wrote, �The disappearance of journalist Georgiy Gongadze and the so-called tape scandal have been used as a reason for social disruption.� The three leaders then apologized for �unprofessional conduct� in the investigation of the Gongadze case, but assured the public that it would be solved. Most disturbingly, Kuchma, Yushchenko and Lytvyn wrote, �Recently, a National Salvation Forum has appeared, based on unknown foundations, and has been widely publicized. The leaders of this many-colored conglomerate, resentful of their own political losses and fiascos, are indeed looking for salvation – not for the state and the nation, but for themselves – from political bankruptcy and disappearance and – some of them – from criminal responsibility.� (18) The letter, timed with Tymoshenko�s arrest, focused national and international attention on the efforts of the government�s political opponents.

But, more seriously, the signature of Ukraine�s most trusted politician on the letter alongside the president undermined the Ukraine Without Kuchma protest movement and was a significant setback for opposition attempts to mobilize citizens. Clearly, a deal was struck – most likely involving a promise from Kuchma not to dismiss Yushchenko. In the following weeks, as Tymoshenko sat in prison, participation in protests fell, and momentum that had been gathering in parliament to vote no confidence in the prosecutor stalled. Heorhiy Omelchenko, co-chairman of the NSF, admitted on February 27 that their movement was not having the effect they desired. �To oust Kuchma,� he said, �it is necessary one day to have as many people in the streets as there are during the Dynamo Kyiv-Barcelona Soccer game. That is 100,000.� But the protest movement �lacks a leader equal to Kuchma,� ITAR-TASS wrote at the time. The news agency noted that Moroz�s Socialist Party �is not a mighty force,� while �Yulia Tymoshenko could have played the role of a Ukrainian Joan of Arc.

But her arrest � beheaded the opposition.� (19) Unfortunately for Kuchma, his unwillingness to live up to his deal with Yushchenko, willingness to use force against tent city demonstrators, and the unexpected, fortuitous release of Tymoshenko, eventually would provide the opposition with the leadership it needed. On March 28, 2001, Yulia Tymoshenko was suddenly released from prison, after a brave Kyiv court ruled that the government did not have probable cause for her arrest. Two days later, she published a statement announcing that a unified opposition program of action would be undertaken �soon,� and that her primary goal remained the removal of �the regime preventing Ukraine�s normal development.� (20) Yushchenko hailed Tymoshenko�s release, saying it would have �a positive impact.� (21) He also pledged to begin negotiations with his former deputy to end the �political crisis� in the country. Just four days later, however, Tymoshenko was re-arrested in the hospital and all access to her was cut-off. In response, Yushchenko made his first clear statements against Kuchma.

He termed the re-arrest a �demonstration of force counterproductive for overcoming the crisis and establishing a normal political dialogue.� Further, he pointed out that the action would put an end to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. �It�s hard to hold talks if any of the negotiating parties are behind bars,� he said. (22) Just over three weeks later, Viktor Yushchenko was removed as the Prime Minister of Ukraine. The next year saw a shift in opposition tactics; Yushchenko�s natural aversion to civil protest and confrontation left him and his allies in a sort of limbo – unable to commit to what he saw as the �radical� opposition, but at the same time not wanting to support the pro-presidential team. He worked to cobble together a new political grouping made up of what he saw as the more moderate members of the pro-governmental forces with the most moderate oppositionists. In late July 2001, in preparation for the parliamentary elections of March 2002, Yushchenko announced the creation of the Our Ukraine Bloc. It was as �centrist� a grouping as Ukraine had ever seen.

Pointedly, Yushchenko expressed no interest in working with either the National Salvation Forum or the Socialist Party. In response, the National Salvation Forum was renamed the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, and Tymoshenko, who had fought attempts to return her to prison since April, repeatedly called on Yushchenko to join a unified opposition force. When she received no response, she announced that her Bloc would concentrate on creating a regional network of opposition offices. Soon after, Russian authorities announced that they had sent evidence to Ukraine implicating Tymoshenko in embezzlement, and urged the authorities to investigate the case. She responded, �Russia is insisting on the destruction of Ukraine�s opposition,� and vowed to fight harder. (23) By September 2001, with severe restrictions placed on her movements, and having survived a suspicious car accident on her way to a court appearance, Tymoshenko�s requests to Yushchenko began turning into demands.

She accused Yushchenko of �a drift to the president� because of his Bloc�s negotiations with the deeply pro-presidential Regions of Ukraine party (the future party of Viktor Yanukovich), and demanded that he give a �specific answer� as to whether he would work with her, and if not, she asked that he explain why. He responded that he objected to the amount of time she spent calling for the removal of the president. �Ukraine has a president,� he said, �a symbol of its statehood. I, being a citizen, have to respect this symbol. If somebody expects something different from me, it�s their problem.� Moreover, Yushchenko stressed that he would continue to �consult him [the president] as long as I think is needed.� (24) In March 2002, Our Ukraine, the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc (BYT) and the Socialist Party entered the parliamentary elections separately – although Tymoshenko and Moroz continued to work together. Despite significant charges of election rigging by the authorities, Our Ukraine, BYT and the Socialists all passed the 4% threshold to enter parliament.

Our Ukraine, in particular, passed all expectations – placing first in the party list vote with over 23 percent. The Communists earned over 20 percent, while pro-presidential parties earned approximately 20 percent. The Tymoshenko Bloc gained approximately 7.5 percent, and the Socialists squeaked into parliament with 5 percent. Given the pressure on the two radical opposition parties – Tymoshenko�s Bloc was not even listed on counting forms throughout portions of the country – both Tymoshenko and Moroz expressed pleasure. Our Ukraine totaled 112 parliamentary seats, the Communists 65, BYT and the Socialists 22 each. However, because 50 percent of the parliament was made up of single-mandate districts, where pro-presidential candidates prevail more easily, pro-Kuchma parties received 148 parliamentary seats. Soon after, Yushchenko and Tymoshenko announced an alliance of their parties, together with the Socialists and the Communists to support their own can didate for parliamentary speaker. The three more radical parties, however, put severe restrictions on the personnel they would support.

Meanwhile, Kuchma�s allies offered Yushchenko a deal – if Our Ukraine would join with the pro-presidential parties to support United Ukraine�s Volodymyr Lytvyn as speaker, they would support Yushchenko�s reinstatement as prime minister. Negotiations on this point, as well as committee chairs, continued for a week and were held separately from the opposition parties, which refused to negotiate. Tymoshenko said, �The agreement to appoint Viktor Yushchenko as prime minister was brilliant bait. (. . .) Through the unrealizable dream of becoming prime minister, Mr. Yushchenko simply refused to lead his own majority of 231 in parliament, which had existed for three weeks. While the businessmen of United Ukraine made a show of discussing details of the agreement with Yushchenko, the authorities were actively pulling away people�s deputies from the opposition majority.� (25) By the conclusion of the negotiations, Our Ukraine�s faction had either formally or theoretically been deserted by nine of its deputies.

When the so-called agreement was reached, United Ukraine refused to support it formally, and then, by virtue of the shrinking size of Our Ukraine, was able to vote in Lytvyn as speaker without the assistance of the opposition parties. The majority had been lost by Yushchenko and nothing had been gained. Later, Tymoshenko explained, �Yushchenko is a good, gentle man. An honest man. He trusts. This is �not always the best thing� in political life.� (26) Yushchenko�s trust was eroding, however, and his anger over the long series of broken agreements with Kuchma and his allies finally resulted in his joining with the opposition. On September 17, 2002, Tymoshenko, Moroz and Communist Leader Petro Symonenko initiated a new campaign called �Rise Up, Ukraine!� Over 100,000 people descended on Independence Square, while organizers claimed that a million people demonstrated throughout the country. The protestors came not just to participate in the rally, but to support Tymoshenko�s call that Yushchenko be elected Ukraine�s new president.

She called for early elections following a �velvet revolution,� and said, �The ideas of this revolution are pure. Therefore they will triumph.� (27) Yushchenko�s appearance on the stage with all other opposition leaders energized the crowd. It was an indication of things to come. Nevertheless, even after this demonstration, and perhaps hoping that the protest would have made its point, Yushchenko suggested negotiations with Kuchma. They never happened. Instead, faced with dwindling support in parliament, Yushchenko lashed out angrily at the president for using �criminal and political pressure� to convince members of Yushchenko�s bloc to desert him. He suggested that the coming months would be a �question of whether to live free or be a slave.� (28) At the same time, his allies began to sense a change in the air. Yushchenko�s campaign manager and now Deputy Premier for Administrative Reform Roman Bezsmertnyy announced on December 12 that Our Ukraine would lead the second stage of the �Rise Up, Ukraine� protests.

The bloc, he said, �should be the leader of the protests rather than follow Tymoshenko or anyone else.� (29) Just days later, Yushchenko announced, �Despite provocation from the presidential administration, we proposed dialogue for eight months in parliament. We were rebuffed, but we did not fall into ambitions � . We will be able to say with a light heart: that�s it, the end. We�ve done everything we could. They don�t understand our language. We are moving to another, multi-million language.� (30) Viktor Yushchenko had finally had enough. From that point on, Yushchenko�s position hardened more each month. As he received death threats – in spite of attempting to negotiate with Kuchma, as his family was sent into hiding, as he was painted a Nazi – even though his father survived Auschwitz, and as he survived a horrific poisoning, he turned more each day to the �radicals� he had pushed away for so long. And when the time came, they welcomed him.

Viktor Yushchenko�s victory was cemented by the hundreds of thousands of people who cheered, stomped, blew horns and chanted at Independence Square at the end of 2004, and by his own strength during a painful, confusing and chaotic presidential campaign. But, the possibility of his victory was created by those around him – the authorities who unbelievably rebuffed his repeated attempts at compromise, and the opposition leaders who, at their own risk, prepared society for the day when Viktor Yushchenko would be ready to lead them. End Notes (1) Tom Warner, �Orange Revolution crowds take on a dynamic of their own,� Financial Times, 27 Nov 04, p. 7. (2) Former Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko was detained on December 4, 1998 in Switzerland on suspicion of money laundering and released pending trial. He was then arrested in the United States on February 20, 1999 for similar charges. In June of 2004, he was found guilty of money laundering, wire fraud and extortion in connection to 60 million dollars questionably transferred to the United States from Ukraine.

He is currently under house arrest in California awaiting the outcome of an appeal. (3) Moroz Claims Kuchma Involved in Gongadze Appearance, Eastern Economist Daily, 29 Nov 00 via Lexis-Nexis. (4) Ironically, one of the first calls for Moroz to be charged in court came from Oleksandr Zinchenko, then the leader of the �party of power,� the Social Democratic Party United. In mid-2004, after a falling-out with Kuchma, Zinchenko became Viktor Yushchenko�s campaign manager. (5) Kuchma Accused of Plotting Journalist�s Demise, The Moscow Times, 30 Nov 00 via Lexis-Nexis. (6) 500 Protest Handling of Gongadze Case, Eastern Economist Daily, 18 Dec 00 via Lexis-Nexis. (7) 5,000 March in Kiev to Protest Journalist�s Disappearance, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 16:15 CET, 19 Dec 00 via Lexis-Nexis.

(8) Olga Kryzhanovska, Ukrainians Tell Kuchma to Step Down, The Moscow Times, 22 Dec 00. (9) Ibid. (11) UNIAN News Agency, 21 Dec 02. (12) Ukraine Police Storm Anti-President Sit-in, Agence France Presse, 12 Jan 01; via Lexis-Nexis. (13) UNIAN news agency, 1410 GMT, 18 Jan 00; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts via Lexis-Nexis. (14) Unified Energy System�s Falkovych and Tymoshenko Arrested, Eastern Economist Daily, 22 Aug 00 via Lexis-Nexis. (15) UNIAN news agency, 1521 GMT, 22 Aug 00. (16) Falling Apart, The Economist, 17 Feb 01. (17) Newly Created National Salvation Forum Has Goal of Impeaching Ukrainian President, Interfax News Agency, 9 Feb 01.

(18) President, Premier and Speaker Address Nation in Joint Statement, UT-1, 1600 GMT, 13 Feb 01; BBC Summary of World Broadcasts via Lexis-Nexis. (19) Ukrainian Protests Subside, ITAR-TASS News Agency, 27 Feb 01 via Lexis-Nexis. (20) Ukraine Business Report, Interfax News Agency, 30 Mar 04. (21) UNIAN news agency, 1701 GMT, 27 Mar 01 (22) Interfax News Agency, 01 Apr 01. (23) Russia Adds Fuel to Fire in Ukraine, The Moscow Times, 09 Aug 01. (24) Ukraine: International Country Risk Guide, The PRS Group, 01 Dec 01 via Lexis-Nexis. (25) Ukrainian Former Deputy PM Claims Role of Opposition Leader, Segodnya, 17 Jun 02, p. 4 via Lexis-Nexis. (26) Meeting with author, Office of Yulia Tymoshenko, 24 Dec 04.

The author is grateful for the assistance of Freedom House Senior Scholar Adrian Karatnycky. (27) United As Never Before, Opposition Parties, Led by Timoshenko, Organize Mass Rallies, Izvestia, 17 Sep 02, p. 1-2; Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press via Lexis-Nexis. (28) Peter Byrne, �Power Play Pro-Kuchma Forces Grab Control of Rada,� Kyiv Post, 12 Dec 02. (29) Ukrainian Opposition Fails to Unite, Ukrainskaya Pravda, 12 Dec 02. (30) Opposition May Take to the Streets, Zerkalo Nedeli, 21 Dec 02. Elections in Ukraine restrict revolutionary icon — RT Russian politics Tags Election , Scandal , Ukraine , Protest , Politics , Law Amidst reports of a tainted election, thousands of concerned voters took to the square to demand a fair process – a move that eventually disrupted the balance of power from the disputed Viktor Yanukovych to Viktor Yushchenko.

The landmark location is where the large-scale protests took place that reshaped the political make-up of the country and it is arguably the most important symbol of one of Ukraine’s most defining historical moments. Now, in a twist of irony, the powerful and nostalgic site has been declared off limits as the same power players run against each other once again, vying for the position of head of state. On January 17, 2010 Ukraine will hold its latest round of presidential elections. In an interesting move, and by decree of a local Kiev district administrative court, all demonstrations or meetings are banned on Independence Square between January 9 and February 5, 2010. According to the Russian wire service RIA Novosti, the request to dampen activities on the square during the election timeline came from the city, although no reason was given for the motion. There are currently 18 candidates in the field, but the three drawing the most attention are names quite familiar in the realm of Ukrainian politics – Viktor Yanukovich, Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko.

Interestingly enough, these presidential hopefuls are the same three candidates with the strongest ties to Independence Square, and thus have the most to gain or lose from the abandonment of its use. Tymoshenko has closely aligned her image in connection with the square, holding pre-election rallies and even her New Years address to the country from the famous location. There is speculation from those closely watching the election that the move to close the square is calculated to stifle Tymoshenko herself. Nikolay Azarov, who heads Yunokovich’s campaign, alleges that Tymoshenko, should she lose the election, is already prepared to actively challenge the decision through the court system. “In her circles she is already freely saying that she knows she will lose, and the only way to get to power is through courts and rallies at the main square,” Azarov said. He also asserts that Yunokovich’s Party of Regions is prepared to join in the battle as well. “We submitted a request, and we will gather our supporters at the same square – as many as needed. We will take all measures allowed under the Constitution and legislation,” Azarov said.

Although the ban on the square seems disadvantageous for Tymoshenko in particular, there is also reason to believe that the move is to maintain general order during a potentially contentious process. Given both candidates’ eagerness to employ Independence Square as a stage for their own causes, it is understandable why authorities might want to remove the location from the playing field. One of the presidential candidates, Protyvsih is so against the status quo in Ukraine that he legally changed his last name to one that literally translates to “against all.” Though his chances of winning are not favorable, his supporters have made a commitment to maintain order during the election process. Taras Palchy, who aligns himself with Protyvsih recognizes the need to maintain order on the square and says he is working to make sure that a repeat of the Orange Revolution doesn’t occur. “If Yanukovich wins, Timoshenko’s supporters will come out to the square, if Timoshenko wins, Yanukovich’s people will come. They want us to be involved in that again, but we will not let them make brothers go against brothers,” Palchy said.

Whether the conditions are ripe for an event similar to the Orange Revolution or not, it is clear Ukraine is keen on keeping its symbols from being exploited by the candidates. At the same time, those candidates who were active during the revolution have said that they will make their voices heard in that same venue. No matter the outcome of the presidential elections in Ukraine, it seems there will be discontent among the candidates at least. Through the court system, the City of Kiev has decided that Independence Square will not be the theater in which the drama will unfold. Whether or not the presidential candidates honor the city’s decision remains to be seen. Sean Thomas, RT ukraine: the orange revolution | openDemocracy Andrew Wilson 17 July 2007 The post-Soviet states still practice forms of political manipulation that are more radical, more pervasive and more corrosive of real democracy than anything attempted by spin-doctors or K-Street consultants in the West, says Andrew Wilson. Andrew Wilson 30 April 2007 A fresh compromise may salve the major political faultlines in the troubled Ukrainian polity. But the depth of the countrys institutional, regional, and personal divisions make repair far harder, says Andrew Wilson.

Alexander Motyl 22 December 2006 The romance of revolution is long gone as Ukrainians learn to cope with democracy's disillusions, says Alexander J Motyl. Alexander Motyl 16 August 2006 Ukraine is in post-orange political meltdown while Russia is reinventing itself as a successful energy superpower. Right? Wrong, says Alexander J Motyl, who looks beneath the surface of a changing relationship. Patrice de Beer 3 April 2006 The sheer normality of Ukraines election indicates how profound its post-orange political transition has been, finds Patrice de Beer. Taras Kuzio 27 March 2006 An "orange coalition" is still the most likely outcome of a Ukrainian election won by the revolutions opponent, says Taras Kuzio. Toby Saul 24 March 2006 After fifteen turbulent months of a hard-won democracy, Ukraine's people are again calling their leaders to account. Askold Krushelnycky talks to Toby Saul about how far the orange revolution's ideals have survived.

On 26 March 2006, Ukrainians vote in parliamentary elections which may see Viktor Yanukovych regain a significant share of the vote for his Party of Regions after being swept out of power in the orange revolution of November 2004-January 2005. Alexander Motyl 24 March 2006 Whatever the result of the 26 March parliamentary elections, Ukraine after the orange revolution is moving towards normal democratic politics not back to authoritarianism, says Alexander J Motyl. Alexander Motyl 17 January 2006 The bitter gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine reveals the stark difference in the character of the two states. The European Union should take note, says Alexander Motyl. Ivan Krastev 19 October 2005 Ukraine's orange revolution was Russia's 9/11, and its result is to convince Moscow that the European Union is its major strategic rival, argues Ivan Krastev. Alexander Motyl 11 September 2005 Kyivs governmental crisis will not derail Ukraines democratic development, says Alexander Motyl.

Ivan Krastev 16 December 2004 The orange revolution in Ukraine is not the last of Europes post-1989 velvet revolutions but the first of the European Union-inspired revolutions of the 21st century, says Ivan Krastev. Katinka Barysch and Charles Grant 7 December 2004 Both the European Union and Russia need to learn an important lesson from the Ukraine crisis: how to reconcile strategic interests and political values in order to help Ukraines people realise their own aspirations. Marek Matraszek 2 December 2004 The Ukrainian revolution has catapulted Poland into the leadership of the European Union and released a new political dynamic across the region, says Marek Matraszek.

The Orange Revolution was a series of protests and political - ECON - 401 View Full Document * The Orange Revolution was a series of protests and political events that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, in the immediate aftermath of the run-off vote of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election which was claimed to be marred by massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud. Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, was the focal point of the movement's campaign of civil resistance, with thousands of protesters demonstrating daily. ** World Trade Organisation *** While work on signing a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU first began in 1999, formal negotiations between the Ukrainian government and the EU Trade Commissioner were not launched until 18 February 2008 . This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document 13 From the Ukraine side, until the signing of the new agreement, it can be argued that the ENP was not an attractive type of cooperation, because the ENP was considered to be a policy diminishing the Ukraine‘s partner status for the simple reason that it puts the country among less reformed countries that are less interested to be a part of the European project. In addition to that, when the implementation of the action plan is observed, it can be seen that although some legislative framework is developed, the laws were still inefficient. The financial and economic difficulties were preventing the implementation of some other items of the plan and there were no real structural and administrative reforms. What is more, Ukraine needed to work how to make the judiciary independent and efficient. And lastly, when this kind of situation coincided with the political crises in 2006 and 2007, it became difficult for Ukraine to accelerate reforms and implement the action plan fully. So, at that time, there were no favorable conditions for the country to initiate the ENP in a progressive manner.[21].

As specifically for the Eastern Partnership that is formally launched in March 2009 and the dynamics with Ukraine within the initiative, it can be said that it was against the Ukraine‘s expectations. That is to say, Ukraine was dreaming to be a part of a partnership that will help it later for its full accession to the union. On this specific initiative Bohdan Danylyshyn, Ukraine‘s minister for economy in May 2008 said Any initiative that is being proposed should be grounded in the unity of the European institutions and the organic role of Ukraine in the EU.* He also adds that Ukraine at the moment is integrating in a highly accelerated manner into the EU and . .. is looking for fully fledged membership of the EU. We see ourselves as part of Europe and we believe Europeans feel the same.

Year on year Ukraine persistently demonstrates that it is a part of Europe and its European aspirations.* Danylyshyn, by stressing on the interests of Ukraine to become part of the EU, also underlined that it is not in the interests of the EU to prolong this process because Ukraine has a huge potential to become an area for European Investment and the expansion in trade could be a real achievement for the creation of a free trade zone.* But, the way the EU was This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document. TERM GRI Weekly Risk Outlook Week of 8-12 December 2014 Analysis: Jos Luengo-Cabrera Infog Weekly_Risk_Outlook_-_Oily_repercussions

Question: In which country did the 'Orange’ Revolution take place between 2004 and 2005?
Answer: Ukraine